series of experiments were as shown in Table 5. For the sake of 

 ready comparison, the results have also been recalculated to a 

 uniform weight of 500 kilograms in proportion to the two-thirds 

 power of the live weight. 



The experiments of 1907, the results of which were the most 

 satisfactory, show a marked difference between the two animals 

 as regards the maintenance requirement, that of. the scrub steer be- 

 ing 33-7 P er cent - higher than that of the pure-bred steer. The re- 

 sults obtained in 1905 and 1906 have less weight, but nevertheless 

 they show a difference in the same general direction. On the average 

 of the three years' experiments the available energy required for 

 maintenance per 500 kilograms live weight was : 



Pure-bred steer 5971 Cals. 



Scrub steer 7090 Cals. 



Even omitting the relatively low result for the pure-bred steer 

 in 1907, the average for this animal is materially lower than that 

 for the scrub. 



The correction of the results to a uniform time of 12 hours 

 standing may be assumed to have approximately eliminated any 

 difference in the maintenance requirement due to the influence of 

 standing or lying. The scrub steer possessed the active, nervous 

 temperament of the dairy type, while the pure-bred steer showed the 

 quiet, almost phlegmatic disposition of the typical beef animal. The 

 figures appear to show that this difference in temperament, aside 

 from any effect which it had upon the amount of time spent stand- 

 ing or lying, very materially affected the maintenance requirement. 

 If such differences prove to be characteristic of the two types of 

 animals they will go far toward explaining the economic superiority 

 of the beef type. 



Gains in Live Weight. 



During the months intervening between the respiration calo- 

 rimeter experiments of each year, the animals received a ration 

 sufficient to produce a normal growth but not to materially fatten 

 them. The average gains per day and the amount of air dry matter 

 in the feed consumed per kilogram of live weight are shown in the 

 following table. 



(14) 



